Using large hard drives under win-98

I decided to start a new thread with the same subject line.

I've now got a way to use 48-bit LBA drives that (fingers crossed) works
properly. The sad tale of woe that I went through to get it is located he

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?...#ent ry614827

"MalcolmO" wrote in message

I decided to start a new thread with the same subject line.

I've now got a way to use 48-bit LBA drives that (fingers crossed) works
properly. The sad tale of woe that I went through to get it is located
he


http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?...#ent ry614827


Well I even see you give a picture of yourself there too o

I realize there is so much information out there that it's hard for someone
who first comes across this subject to really get a handle on it all and
know which is the right way for them, but I will say and I can't stress
this enough, that using the CC I've already linked you to will/would have
avoided all of that hassle you had to go through although granted it was
good experience. A cc also opens up new levels of performance, safety, and
features that no other way can offer.

I'd already covered this more in detail earlier in this or elsewhere
thread, but no matter what way you choose, the basics are to suggest
the Primary OS FAT32 partitions to be made under 8 GB not only for the best
4k cluster size efficiency but it's so much faster to defrag, etc. You
really don't need anymore than 8 GB anyway for the OS FAT32 partition; then
the Logical partitions used for the storage of all other non essential
files, of which you take all Logical partitions making those larger
according to your HD's size divvy up decisions - however it's
'''imperative''' to note that these larger HD's even still must be further
partitioned because a stock W98x must not see any one partition throughout
the HD that's over 128 GB (under 127 best) or you will have fatal problems
when windows stock utilities like scandisk, defrag, etc, are
automatically/manually called upon.

Rick

Well I even see you give a picture of yourself there too o

Yup. My real name, my real picture. But I'm thinking of legally changing
it to ChewToy and getting plastic surgery to resemble a rubber pork chop.

it's hard for someone
who first comes across this subject to really get a handle on it all

This wasn't the first time! The first time took a *month*. This time
just took a couple weeks.

using the CC I've already linked you to will/would have
avoided all of that hassle

I _am_ still considering it.

a stock W98x must not see any one partition throughout
the HD that's over 128 GB (under 127 best) or you will have fatal problems
when windows stock utilities like scandisk, defrag, etc, are
automatically/manually called upon.


Right you are, Rick. That's why I'm not stock. In fact, my boot
partition is 127GB and I've stopped the blue-screen DOS scandisk from
auto-running after a crash because it's irretrievable. And I've replaced
Scandskw, Defrag and dskmaint.dll with their ME equivalents.

Does Promise give your replacements for those as well as drivers? They
must, eh?

(could've sworn I'd started a new thread. Hunh.)

"MalcolmO" wrote in message

[....]

a stock W98x must not see any one partition throughout
the HD that's over 128 GB (under 127 best) or you will have fatal
problems when windows stock utilities like scandisk, defrag, etc, are
automatically/manually called upon.

Right you are, Rick. That's why I'm not stock. In fact, my boot
partition is 127GB and I've stopped the blue-screen DOS scandisk from

For one thing I don't recommend a FAT32 127 GB boot partition for the
reasons stated before, but ymmv, although for efficiency sake I won't agree
with them - not to mention importantly every adept tech always uses
partition backup imaging for the dozens reasons/benefits of doing so, and
so to the point above, working with the backup OS partition images
(compressed) of only a few GB in size are indeed appropriate for another
dozen reasonable benefits

You see only OS operational files and important things similar
are all that's really needed on the OS partition, that's why I recommend
any extra copies of whatever 'this and that' items you want to save from
'a to z' belong on D:\ (or whatever letter(s) for storage partition(s) are;
Backup partition images are also saved to that storage partition as well.
Storage partitions (logical formatted) are better duplicated/saved/imaged
onto identical spare HD's; however the subject is almost endless and is
too much to cover since one thing leads to another and another and
another... but back to your post...

Even at 127 GB though there's no need to disable scandisk which would be
only if over that limit, and only disable it if you know what your doing
having a valid test reason to do so; but when you are setup properly (and
properly is the only thing I recommend) there's no need disabling scandisk
autorun in the first place and shouldn't be done etc, but again, ymmv.

auto-running after a crash because it's irretrievable. And I've replaced
Scandskw, Defrag and dskmaint.dll with their ME equivalents.

Replacing (some) of those files you mentioned are a good thing for their
own separate efficient performance benefits yes, but they have nothing
to do with the subject at hand. fwiw though you didn't list it, but
Scandisk.exe is just as desirable to replace as well.
Also fwiw I do not recommend replacing the dskmaint.dll in the first place!
Don't run out and do everything you read on the net from anywhere.

Does Promise give your replacements for those as well as drivers? They
must, eh?

No, windows drivers will stay as they are stock.
The Promise controller card uses its own drivers to do its remarkable
advanced functions.

Rick


(could've sworn I'd started a new thread. Hunh.)

The Promise controller card uses its own drivers to do its remarkable
advanced functions.

Well, sure. But that doesn't deal with the fact that the disk tools that
I've replaced are 28-bit (and I think scandisk is even lower). And
Promise _does_ claim to be ready for enormous partitions. So it needs to
either give you new ones or order you to keep your sizes small. Only the
former can be expected to be effective. :P

"MalcolmO" wrote in message

The Promise controller card uses its own drivers to do its remarkable
advanced functions.

Well, sure. But that doesn't deal with the fact that the disk tools that
I've replaced are 28-bit (and I think scandisk is even lower). And

...not sure what disk tools you are referring to, however using the stock
W98 or appropriate WME tools as mentioned - everything works perfectly
normal.

Promise _does_ claim to be ready for enormous partitions. So it needs to
either give you new ones ...

It doesn't need to replace the original windows drivers with new ones since
it instead bypasses HD's controller functions through the Bus, which a
dedicated PCI BIOS and its bus architecture I've always found through hands
on experience gives much! better performance-wise abilities, avoiding all
bottleneck problems in standard controllers with or without an updated
esdi_506.pdr

... or order you to keep your sizes small. Only the former can be
expected to be effective. :P

order? ..I don't think you've understood my references of what I was
talking about. Creating OS partitions under 8 GB for best 4k cluster size
efficiency which is not a prerequisite order but a common sense thing to
do, otherwise one can choose to make them as large as they want but it
always has to be under 128/7 GB period! The other under 8 GB advantages
of Primary OS partitions I've given throughout are well understood..

Rick

Rick Chauvin wrote:

Creating OS partitions under 8 GB for best 4k cluster size
efficiency which is not a prerequisite order but ...

I'm pretty sure that Fdisk doesn't allow you to control the cluster
size for a given partition size.

Once you hit a partition size of 64 gb Fdisk switches to 64k cluster
size. That seems to be a way to limit the number of clusters to
something like 2 million. The exact reason for this limitation is not
known (to me anyways) other than to maintain compatibility with defrag
and scandisk.

Third-party drive tools allow you to create a FAT-32 partition with
any cluster size, and even DOS is compatible with 40 million clusters
of 4kb each, and I'm going to find out if Win-98 is as well. Other
than defrag and scandisk not being compatible with such a
configuration, there's nothing else that I've read that could cause a
problem.

Note that NT-based operating systems were intentionally handicapped to
prevent them from creating FAT-32 partitions of larger than 8gb. They
can, however, handle FAT-32 partitions larger than 8 gb just fine
(they just can't natively create them).

And besides, partitioning a 200 or 500 gb drive into multiple drives
of 8 gb each is clearly impractical.

Note also that FAT-32 can theoretically partition a drive of up to
something like 2200 gb (2.2 tera-bytes). The pending availability of
a 1-terrabyte drive has just been announced by some maker (Hitachi?).

not sure what disk tools you are referring to

The ones I replaced: scandskw, defrag and dskmaint.dll

using the stock
W98 or appropriate WME tools as mentioned - everything works perfectly
normal.

The stock tools will NOT work when the contents ... oh, but you don't
have anything that size ... no joy for those that do. Unless they've
subbed the ME tools.

It doesn't need to replace the original windows drivers with new ones since
it instead bypasses HD's controller functions through the Bus

OK, language problem. It needs to *operationally substitute* its drivers
for its card in place of the drivers for the mobo-integrated IDE
device. Once that substitution has been made, there is indeed no reason
to replace the now-unused drivers.

order?

Yes, order! Because without disk tool replacement, large partitions will
cease to work properly once they exceed the 127GB.

I don't think you've understood my references of what I was
talking about.

Yes, I have; you haven't understood mine! There are plenty of people who
have no idea about the ins and outs of partition sizes and/or cluster
sizes. They simply buy a big drive and find they can't use it with
Win98. Someone tells them: Get the Promise controller and you'll be
fine. They get it, make a huge partition, fill it with more than 127GB
of data, and then run scandskw or defrag and their data is scrambled.
Because even though the drivers are equipped for 48-bit LBA, the disk
tools don't know anything beyond 28-bit.

ERGO, they have to provide new tools or ORDER you to use small
partitions. Since people are notorious for not taking orders well, the
SAFE thing to do is install new, *capable* disk tools when the drivers
are installed.

"98 Guy" wrote in message
Rick Chauvin wrote:

Creating OS partitions under 8 GB for best 4k cluster size
efficiency which is not a prerequisite order but ...

I'm pretty sure that Fdisk doesn't allow you to control the cluster
size for a given partition size.

Creating an 8GB partition automatically comes out with a 4k cluster size.
I admit I do not use the antiquated fdisk though anymore, I use PM v7 or 8
instead for its simple and all inclusive ease of use.

[...]
And besides, partitioning a 200 or 500 gb drive into multiple drives
of 8 gb each is clearly impractical.

I only said the Primaries Guy, and so for you to say that though shows me
you totally took something I said out of context and miss-quoted anything
I said anywhere in this thread.

What I said and what I've always suggested is create just the FAT32 OS
partitions to be made under 8 GB not only for the best 4k cluster size
efficiency and for many other very good efficient reasons already outlined.
You can make up to Three of them for triple booting capabilities.
If you don't care about efficiency then you can make your FAT32 Primaries
up to 128 GB if you want (as long as you have true LBA support) but not
over since windows tools won't work with it without having problems, and
that's the reason.

Then you take all of your extra space and make those Logical partitions and
divvy them up according to your HD's size - but always any of those must
also be 'under' 128 GB and I like to make them an even 121GB. For instance
I currently use 300GB HD's myself, and have three 7 GB Primary FAT32 OS
partitions I boot to, and two 121 GB partition for storage, and the 15GB
left is just called extra. ...here's screenshot of what my 300 GB drives
looks like booted from any of my three OS's
http://rdchauvin.com/300GB-SE,2K,XP.gif

Note also that FAT-32 can theoretically partition a drive of up to
something like 2200 gb (2.2 tera-bytes). The pending availability of
a 1-terrabyte drive has just been announced by some maker (Hitachi?).

Yes, but can you run W98x on it leaving its windows utilities in tact
without any problems - no, and so that's why the OS must not see any one
partition over 128 GB (and again that's only if you have LBA suport)

Guy, what size is the HD you are currently using?

Rick

"MalcolmO" wrote in message

not sure what disk tools you are referring to

The ones I replaced: scandskw, defrag and dskmaint.dll

I've already told you that dskmaint.dll should not be replaced, and also
told you scandisk.exe is viable as well; but again these have nothing to do
with the subject at hand anyway!

using the stock
W98 or appropriate WME tools as mentioned - everything works perfectly
normal.

The stock tools will NOT work when the contents ... oh, but you don't
have anything that size ... no joy for those that do.
Unless they've subbed the ME tools.

That's not true Malcom...
It's with or without them the same rules apply.
The only reason to replace them is just better efficiency is all, but they
cause or solve no new problems.
They have Nothing to do with the LBA issues that we're speaking of anway.

It doesn't need to replace the original windows drivers with new ones
since it instead bypasses HD's controller functions through the Bus

OK, language problem. It needs to *operationally substitute* its drivers
for its card in place of the drivers for the mobo-integrated IDE
device. Once that substitution has been made, there is indeed no reason
to replace the now-unused drivers.

There is reason of course, since they are still used for all the other
non-HD's connected to the onboard controller

order?

Yes, order! Because without disk tool replacement, large partitions will
cease to work properly once they exceed the 127GB.

I don't think you've understood my references of what I was
talking about.

Yes, I have; you haven't understood mine! There are plenty of people who
have no idea about the ins and outs of partition sizes and/or cluster
sizes. They simply buy a big drive and find they can't use it with
Win98. Someone tells them: Get the Promise controller and you'll be
fine. They get it, make a huge partition, fill it with more than 127GB

Nowhere will you ever find I said to make a partition larger than 127 GB
have you? No. You misunderstand and I'm sorry for that.

of data, and then run scandskw or defrag and their data is scrambled.
Because even though the drivers are equipped for 48-bit LBA, the disk
tools don't know anything beyond 28-bit.

ERGO, they have to provide new tools or ORDER you to use small
partitions. Since people are notorious for not taking orders well, the
SAFE thing to do is install new, *capable* disk tools when the drivers
are installed.

I give up - you haven't heard or at least specifically understood the
meaning of the words I've said. I'm sorry.
I'm outta here, but I've tried very hard to help.
I'll leave it for someone else now since I'm out of time.

good luck, and I do sincerly wish you the best.

Rick